Use and efficacy of a borderline personality disorder tool
Intended for healthcare professionals
Evidence & Practice Previous     Next

Use and efficacy of a borderline personality disorder tool

Chris Gordon Operational services manager – eating disorders and personality disorder, Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, England
Jon Knight Assistant psychologist, personality disorder service, Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, England
Elizabeth Fawkes Head of psychological services, Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, England
Jane Yeandle Consultant clinical psychologist, head of division, Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, England

The self-identification and evaluation of borderline personality disorder (BPD) tool, also called the BPD wheel, is a ten-item self-report scale designed and developed to assess client’s experience of BPD symptoms against subscale items directly related to diagnostic indicators for BPD. Previous research has demonstrated the efficacy of adopting a relational recovery approach to working with BPD using an integrated, collaborative approach which uses structured clinical management, psychological formulation and risk assessment and management in combination. The BPD wheel is designed to complement and support this way of working by promoting partnership with service users. There is often a reliance on unstructured clinical assessment for BPD in non-specialist centres, despite documented difficulties with subjective approaches and the requirements of contemporary quality standards. This article introduces and explores the efficacy of the BPD wheel as a structured clinical tool used to assess service users with BPD, using a mixed methodology design combining cross-sectional, retrospective elements with qualitative feedback. It concludes that the tool demonstrates high levels of validity and utility.

Mental Health Practice. 20, 7, 15-21. doi: 10.7748/mhp.2017.e1161

Correspondence

jonathan.knight@sompar.nhs.uk

Peer review

This article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and checked for plagiarism using automated software

Conflict of interest

None declared

Received: 16 March 2016

Accepted: 09 September 2016

Want to read more?

Already subscribed? Log in

OR

Unlock full access to RCNi Plus today

Save over 50% on your first 3 months

Your subscription package includes:
  • Unlimited online access to all 10 RCNi Journals and their archives
  • Customisable dashboard featuring 200+ topics
  • RCNi Learning featuring 180+ RCN accredited learning modules
  • RCNi Portfolio to build evidence for revalidation
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
Subscribe
RCN student member? Try Nursing Standard Student

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now

Or